| Subject: But you should. |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 4/04 7:01pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "I don't agree" on 10/ 2/04 3:31am
>>I think Bush comes from a line of thinking which
>>encourages big, bold movements that the common man can
>>really get behind.
>
>See, I don't buy the "intellectual elitist" view of
>American politics that every left-leaning person seems
>to think is the case. It's not about "convincing the
>idiot masses." He's not making "big bold moves" to
>inspire the "common man." He's doing what he thinks
>is right (which the majority of us seem to agree with,
>I might add.)
The majority were for the war in Iraq? Not as I remember it. So you understand what I’m saying, I do not think that Bush makes big, bold movements +because+ the common man can get behind them… rather, I think the common man has an easier time getting behind such movements rather than following the more tedious aspects of politics.
>>In reality, I think politics are
>>much more subtle and intricate than a typical American
>>can understand.
>
>And I *really* dislike the, "Daddy knows best"
>argument. Look - we're all reasonable people. Either
>what Kerry says about his plan in Iraq is crap, or
>it's not. Are you trying to say that, "Even if Kerry
>never sets out a clear plan, or we can't figure out
>just how in the world he's going to manage to make it
>work, we should accept it because we couldn't possibly
>understand the subtleties and intricacies of
>international politics"?
No, I’m not saying that. But I am saying that Kerry’s idea of what should be done may not be as exciting as Bush’s, but still might be better.
>Your argument seems to set up a no-lose situation,
>kind of how Fundamentalist Christians do with
>statements about "God's will" and bad things happening:
>
>"If Kerry explains himself and we agree with him, then
>that's good. But if we don't understand how he's
>going to do what he says, or, indeed, even WHAT he's
>planning to do in the first place, we should just
>trust Him anyways, because, who are we to know the
>mind of Kerry?"
No, I don’t think this at all. Again, Bush didn’t set out some intricate plan for what he wants to do in Iraq either… it’s difficult to do in two minutes. What I’m saying is that +if+ Kerry has a good plan or is in the process of developing a good plan, it could be both better and less accessible to the American public at the same time.
>It sounds an awful lot like "don't trust your own
>intellect - trust in Kerry."
It isn’t that at all, although your comments have sounded a bit like, “Don’t trust your own intellect about the candidate that seems to best reflect your values – vote Bush.”
>> I’m not sure what you
>>expect in two-minute segments, but Bush certainly
>>didn’t do any better, simply uttering the same phrases
>>over and over about Kerry changing his mind on the war
>>in Iraq. He sounded like a bird that only knows one
>>song.
>
>No, he sounded like a guy who kept repeating a
>scathing assessment of why his opponent wasn't fit for
>office. And his opponent's tactic was to ignore it.
>So he kept repeating it.
Again, I heard Kerry address this point the first time Bush made it. After that, he sounded a bit like a broken record, repeating something that had already been explained. Besides, the life of a Senator involves day-in, day-out voting on various issues. I think it’s easy to later go back and paint a certain picture using only votes and not the context of those votes. Since Bush has never had a long-standing track record in politics, there’s not much we can do to examine how he does things.
>>I think it’s a complete
>>misrepresentation to think that Kerry is naïve about
>>international relations. If anyone is, it’s the
>>spoiled oil tycoon who became governor for a little
>>while, then entered the complex world of Washington
>>politics without a clue as to how it really works.
>
>Except that he's got a party who DOES know how to run
>our country properly backing him. As opposed to
>Kerry, whose party has an ideologically flawed and
>damaging economic policy, and a history of screwing up
>internationally (though we're "very well liked,"
>'cause we give everyone what they want when a
>Democrat's in office...).
That may be true. I honestly haven’t studied the Democratic party’s history enough to know. I don’t remember things being so bad when Clinton was in office. I could just as easily say that every Republican I remember has gotten us into some war or other, spending billions of dollars and many lives in the process without any noticeable benefit. Being well liked isn’t a bad thing, you know. Obviously, it can’t be the guiding factor, but it doesn’t prove anything bad about a party either. Furthermore, as I mentioned in another post, Kerry will still have a Republican Congress to contend with, which I think will be a nice balance. Aren’t they ultimately the main ones who decide economic policy?
> Assuming that both Kerry
>and Bush couldn't run the country well, at least Bush
>has the backing of party with a rationally defensible
>platform. See, when you take Democratic policy to its
>rational basis, you see it for what it is. And it's
>not a pleasant view.
So what? Take the Republican party to its ultimate development, and you’ll find the Ten Commandments in every courtroom and Intelligent Design theory in every textbook.
>I think you've found a very apt analogy - so what
>about the Principal who's been principal for 4 years,
>as opposed to the teacher who now wants to be
>principal? You've got to see the difference between
>Kerry's stint as a US Senator, and the kind of
>leadership it takes to run a nation. Bush has done
>it, and done it well, for 4 years. I haven't seen
>Kerry run anything except for his mouth...
This begs the question, since I think Bush has done a terrible job of running the country. I often wonder if in four more years, he might be able to destroy it completely. Of course there is a difference between being a Senator and running a nation, but didn’t we elect Bush without knowing how he would be as a leader? It’s not fair to say that just because Bush has experience as President that he is necessarily a better person for the job. For all we know, Kerry might be far better.
Also… I would take the teacher who want to be principal over the 4-year principal who was never a teacher.
I’ll continue this post where you continued yours.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 